Media favors the Democrats....

...like we didn't know. It just cracks me up when I hear or read on this board that the media is supporting Republicans, Bush.

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias
this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Well, if the American public is too lazy and too complacent to do their own research on the candidates, then it's all of our loss.

These days, it seems like people believe whatever they read on the net and whatever they see on television. I may watch CNN and FOX (I will not watch
MSNBC....refuse, can't take it!!), and I may get some "facts" from them. But, if it is something that catches my interest long enough to catch my
attention, I am going to research it.

I live in the USA and I watched/read/listened as the US's Mainstream Media pushed Bush's lies about Iraq and propagandized the American people into
supporting the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 instead of attacking Saudi Arabia.
(Saudis planned financed and carried it out according to the US Gov't.
AS Geberal Clark said: "Attacking Iraq after 9/11 makes as much sense as if Roosevelt had invaded Mexico after Pearl Harbor:

That same media attacked Bill Clinton enmass for 8 years.

I see absolutely no evidence the media is anything but Republican propaganda.
Moderate and Liberal Republicans, yes Liberal in the Rockefeller liberal style only.
Liberal iwht an (R)

BTW
All this bewildering MSM fanatic support for Obama?
Let a leading Republican explain that:

>Mitt Romney: "I go in their primary, just like a lot of other folks, and voted against the person who I thought was the strongest Democrat.

Now, that happens in America today,

but let me tell you, in the general election, I don't recall ever once voting for anyone other than a Republican.

Hillary's moderate stands on issues and that Hillary has more balls than McCain or Obama made her tooo likely to win, so Republicans crossed over to
select Obama.
When people began to suspect that was happening,
Rush et al pulled a quick propaganda coup by claiming they were really for Hillary (wink wink)

Obama is not bright enough to realize that Republican support will shift to "anyone with an (R)" as usual this fall.

"If they are Republicans and independents who are working with me, that makes us stronger."
Senator Obama

www.gov.harvard.edu...
".. Having a sincere preference for one party’s candidate in the general election, “raiders” may enter the opposing party’s primary to vote
for a weaker candidate to face their preferred choice in the fall (Chen and Yang 2002, Cherry and Kroll 2003).

Strategic voting in this sense has two steps: the decision to vote in the primary of the party opposing their preferred general election candidate
(here, crossover voting), and the decision to vote for the least electable candidate in this primary."

Reading the whole interview, Romney is merely describing why he voted in Democratic primaries in the 80s and early 90s. Where he lived, the
Republican primaries simply weren't competitive or interesting.

I'm in a similar situation in my area; despite the fact that the area is quite conservative, it has a very long history of voting Democrat.
You're wasting your time running here without a (D) beside your name. In the end, everyone, regardless of actual ideology (and again, most are
solid conservatives), actually runs as a Dem because they have to if they want to win. That's why I sometimes vote in Dem primaries even though I
absolutely abhor the national party platform. Local politics is often bizarre like that.

One note: I would've voted in the Republican primary this year, but it was basically over when my state came up so I didn't bother with either
side.

I can't believe how many people are still blinded by the party lines. The Media IS NOT LIBERAL. The Media IS NOT CONSERVATIVE either. The Media is
pushing an agenda, not a party and as long as people with small minds keep falling for the same nonsense, nothing will ever change.

Allow me to explain a little something about news, their job is to report the facts and allow the viewer/reader to form their own opinions based on
the facts. Today our news is not news at all. Now they "report" the story, offer opinion and lead the viewer/reader in how they should accept the
information and how they should think. That is the definition of Propaganda.

Keep your eyes on the real problem. This "liberal" media nonsense and dividing based on Party lines is exactly what is wanted and counted on. As
long as people are preoccupied with something so trivial, they are not paying attention to the bigger issues.

So congrats to some of you, you still are sheep! Being a sheep is not about being uninformed, it is about falling for the same crap that keeps you
distracted, divided, and not a threat to the agenda.

Reading the whole interview, Romney is merely describing why he voted in Democratic primaries in the 80s and early 90s. Where he lived, the
Republican primaries simply weren't competitive or interesting.

>Mitt Romney: "I go in their primary, just like a lot of other folks, and voted against the person who I thought was the strongest Democrat.

I'm in a similar situation in my area; despite the fact that the area is quite conservative, it has a very long history of voting Democrat.
You're wasting your time running here without a (D) beside your name.

I'm in th edeep south.
Solid Republican since Nixon;s Southern Strategy when Republicans, as a party, embraced racism. (winning without blacks' votes- like in 1968-2004)

I've been a Goldwater Republican since I knocked on doors for Barry in 1964. (Phx AZ)
What part of truth is partisan?
Both sides lie and both sides can be truthful.
Depends on whose ox is being gored.
I helped select the weakest (D) candidate many times.
Since the BS of the 1990's I distrust both sides.

Those most evil of the Democrats changed sides and are now the neo-cons,
they control the Republican party, and made it what we used to hate about Democrats:
Big intrusive government, deficit spending, meddling in internal affairs of other nations/causing wars, dodging personal responsibility....

In the end, everyone, regardless of actual ideology (and again, most are solid conservatives), actually runs as a Dem because they have to if they
want to win. That's why I sometimes vote in Dem primaries even though I absolutely abhor the national party platform. Local politics is often
bizarre like that.

One note: I would've voted in the Republican primary this year, but it was basically over when my state came up so I didn't bother with either
side.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by vor78]

I choose the best of each party to support.
Means I have to get active long before the election cycle to meet and evaluate potentials.
Once I helped convince a state Senator to run for Congress.
(He sold after five years on the Hill)
Once I ran a faux "Democrats For...." to keep a (R) Senator in office.

I do that because nothing affects our lives like politics.

ALL...
Ever lost a son because your team won or lost the superbowl?
Ever had your taxes raised or shifted to another economic class because your team won or lost the World Series?
Ever lost or gained any individual freedom because your NBA team won or lost a game?

That's pretty much my interpretation of Romney's position, that he was defending his previous votes based on the question asked. I'm not going to
defend it past that.

As for my situation, you're missing my point: the local Dems are pretty conservative and actually represent my views quite well, unlike the
national Democratic party. So in the primaries, for me, its a balancing act: am I more concerned with local issues or national issues? If its
the former, why should I vote in the Republican primary for a bunch of local candidates that ultimately have no chance at all of winning and that
even I probably won't vote for in November? I'd much rather vote in the Dem primary where the stronger candidates will be when, again, the local
Dems actually do represent my views.

I do NOT go into the polling booth to screw with the other side. If I vote in the Dem primary, its to vote for local Dems who I WILL vote for in the
fall (unless the national Dem party, which again, I hate, really, REALLY ticks me off in the intervening 8 months).

I may be a conservative and I may lean Republican, but I am NOT registered with any political party (we have open primaries, anyway) and again, I
did not vote in either primary this spring.

Adkisson "stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were
ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution
in America with the aid of the major media outlets," investigator Steve Still wrote.

But who was it that was behind his hate? Was it the liberally biased MSM that convinced him to hate so much?

"Adkisson told Still that 'he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to
office.'

"Adkisson told officers he left the house unlocked for them because 'he expected to be killed during the assault.'

"Inside the house, officers found 'Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder' by radio talk show host Michael Savage, 'Let Freedom Ring' by talk
show host Sean Hannity, and 'The O'Reilly Factor,' by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly."

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.